Base generated ~71% of all Superchain sequencer revenue in 2025. The revenue concentration has only intensified, but Coinbase's payments to Optimism remain capped at 2.5%.
OP token has collapsed 93% from ATH ($4.84 → $0.32) while Base's TVL grew 48% ($3.1B → $5B) in 2025. The market is pricing in that Base's growth doesn't accrue to OP holders, but hasn't yet priced in the exit risk.
The OP Stack is MIT-licensed. The only thing keeping Base in the Superchain is a governance relationship that a BASE token with independent scope would dissolve. Coinbase can fork tomorrow, and they're building the political infrastructure to do so.
Optimism gave Base 118M OP tokens to ensure long-term alignment, but capped their voting power at 9% of supply. This isn't alignment; it's a minority stake with an exit option. If OP price dumps post-renegotiation, Coinbase's grant losses are dwarfed by eliminating the revenue share.
Coinbase, through its L2 network Base, generated ~71% of the Superchain's sequencer revenue in 2025 while paying just 2.5% back to the Optimism Collective. The OP Stack is MIT-licensed. There is nothing, technologically or legally, preventing Coinbase from renegotiating these terms under threat of exit, or from building parallel infrastructure that renders Superchain membership ceremonial. OP holders are exposed to a single-counterparty revenue dependency with asymmetric downside, and we do not believe the market has fully priced in this risk.
When Optimism structured the Base agreement, the assumption was that no single chain would dominate Superchain economics to the point where the revenue share became asymmetric. The fee split, calculated as the greater of 2.5% of chain revenue or 15% of onchain profit (fee revenue minus L1 gas costs), seemed reasonable for a diversified ecosystem of collaborating rollups.
That assumption proved wrong. In 2025, Base generated $74 million in chain revenue, accounting for over 71% of all OP Chain sequencer fees while paying just 2.5% back to the Optimism Collective. That's a 28:1 value extraction ratio in Coinbase's favor. By Oct 2025, Base's TVL had reached $5 billion (+48% HoH), making it the only Ethereum L2 to cross this threshold. The concentration has only intensified since.
The subsidy dynamic compounds this imbalance. While Base dominates revenue generation, OP Mainnet, which shares 100% of its profit with the Collective, punches above its weight in actual contributions. OP Mainnet is, in effect, subsidizing the political coherence of a coalition where the largest member pays the smallest share.
Where do these fees actually go? According to Optimism's own documentation, the sequencer revenue flows into the Optimism Collective treasury. To date, the Collective has accumulated over $34M from Superchain fees, but none of this revenue has been used or allocated to any specific programs yet.
The stated flywheel (fees fund public goods, public goods grow the ecosystem, ecosystem generates more fees) hasn't actually started spinning. Current programs like RetroPGF and ecosystem grants are funded by OP token emissions and not the ETH treasury. This matters because it undermines the core value proposition of Superchain membership. Base contributes ~$1.85M annually to a treasury that provides no direct economic return to fee-paying chains.
The governance engagement tells the same story. Base published a "Manifesto: How Base will participate in Optimism governance" in January 2024. Since then: silence. No proposals, no forum discussions, no visible participation in Superchain governance. For a chain that generates +70% of the Superchain's economic value, Base is conspicuously absent from the political process it's supposedly aligned with. Even Optimism's own governance forums rarely mention Base. The "shared governance" value proposition appears to be theoretical on both sides.
Thus the "value" of Superchain membership is so far entirely prospective — future interoperability, future governance influence, future network effects. For a company with fiduciary duties to shareholders, "future value" is a hard sell when the current cost is concrete and recurring.
The ultimate question boils down to whether Coinbase has any economic incentive to maintain it, and what happens when they decide they don't.
Here is the legal reality that underlies every Superchain relationship: the OP Stack is an MIT-licensed public good. Anyone in the world can clone, fork, or deploy it, free of charge, and without permission.
So what keeps chains like Base, Mode, Worldcoin, and Zora inside the Superchain? The answer, per Optimism's own documentation, is a set of soft locks: access to shared governance, shared upgrades and security, ecosystem funding, and the legitimacy of Superchain branding. Chains opt in because they want to, not because they have to.
We believe this distinction matters enormously when assessing OP's risk profile.
Consider what Coinbase would lose in a fork scenario: participation in Optimism governance, the "Superchain" branding, and access to coordinated protocol upgrades. Now consider what they would keep: 100% of their $5B TVL, their entire user base, every application deployed on Base, and the entire $74M+ in sequencer revenue.
The soft locks only work if Base needs something from Optimism that it can't build or buy itself. We believe the evidence suggests Base is already building that independence. In December 2025, Base launched a direct bridge to Solana secured by Chainlink CCIP built with Coinbase infrastructure, not Superchain interoperability. This is not the language of a chain waiting for Superchain interop to ship.
We are not claiming Coinbase will fork tomorrow. What we are suggesting is that the MIT license is a fully-vested exit option, and Coinbase's recent actions indicate they are actively reducing their dependency on Superchain-provided value. A BASE token with independent governance scope would complete that transition, transforming the soft locks from meaningful constraints into purely ceremonial affiliations.
The question for OP holders is straightforward: if the only thing keeping Base in the Superchain is the appearance of ecosystem alignment, what happens when Coinbase decides that appearance no longer serves them?
"Beginning to explore" is the exact language every L2 used 6-12 months before their token generation event.
In September 2025, Jesse Pollak announced at BaseCamp that Base is "beginning to explore" a native token. He was careful to add that there are "no definitive plans to share at this time" and that Coinbase is "not planning to announce a release date anytime soon." This is notable because, until late 2024, Coinbase explicitly stated there were no plans for a Base token. The announcement came months after Kraken's Ink network revealed plans for an INK token, a signal that the competitive landscape for L2 tokenization has shifted.
We believe the framing matters as much as the substance. Pollak described the token as "powerful leverage for expanding governance, ensuring incentive alignment among developers, and opening up new design avenues." These are not neutral categories. Protocol upgrades, fee parameters, ecosystem grants, sequencer selection — these are precisely the domains currently governed by the Superchain. A BASE token with governance scope over these decisions would create overlapping authority with Optimism, and Coinbase would hold the larger economic mandate.
To understand why a BASE token fundamentally changes the relationship, consider how Superchain governance currently works.
The Optimism Collective operates a bicameral system: the Token House (OP holders) votes on protocol upgrades, grants, and governance proposals, while the Citizens' House (badge holders) votes on RetroPGF distributions. Base's upgrade authority is controlled via a 2/2 multisig between Base and the Optimism Foundation — neither party can unilaterally upgrade Base's contracts. The Security Council, once fully implemented, will execute upgrades "at the direction of Optimism Governance."
This structure gives Optimism shared control over Base, not unilateral control. The 2/2 multisig is mutual deterrence: Optimism can't force upgrades Base doesn't want, but Base can't upgrade without Optimism's signature either.
The structural conflict is unavoidable if Coinbase decides to follow the path like ARB, OP, and many other L2 governance tokens. If BASE holders vote on protocol upgrades, whose decision prevails — BASE governance or OP governance? If BASE funds its own grants program, why would Base developers wait for RetroPGF? If BASE governance controls sequencer selection, what authority does the 2/2 multisig actually have?
Critically, Optimism Governance has no power to prevent Base from launching a token with overlapping scope. The Law of Chains defines protections for users and standards for interoperability, but it doesn't restrict what a chain governor can do with their own token. Coinbase could launch BASE tomorrow with full governance authority over Base's protocol decisions, and Optimism's only recourse would be political pressure — the same soft lock that already isn't working.
What also makes this particularly interesting is the public company constraint. This is the first time a publicly traded company will be behind a TGE. Traditional TGEs and airdrops are designed to maximize token value for private investors and the founding team. But Coinbase has fiduciary duties to COIN shareholders. Any token distribution must be justified by how it improves Coinbase's enterprise value.
This changes the game theory. Coinbase can't simply airdrop tokens to maximize community goodwill. They need a structure that enhances the value of COIN. One way to do that is to use the BASE token as leverage to renegotiate the Superchain revenue share downward, thereby increasing Base's retained earnings and, by extension, Coinbase's bottom line.
The strongest case against our thesis is that Coinbase is a public company positioning itself as the "compliant, collaborative" player in crypto. Forking the OP Stack to save a few million dollars per year in revenue share looks petty and would damage their carefully cultivated brand. This argument deserves serious consideration.
The Superchain does offer real value. The roadmap includes native cross-chain messaging, and total value secured across all Ethereum L2s peaked at around $55.5 billion in December 2025. Base benefits from composability with OP Mainnet, Unichain, and Worldchain. Walking away from that network effect has costs.
Then there's the 118 million OP token grant. To solidify the "long-term alliance," the Optimism Foundation provided Base the opportunity to earn up to approximately 118 million OP tokens over six years. At the time of the deal, that was worth roughly $175 million.
We believe this defense misunderstands the actual threat. The counterargument assumes a hard, public fork. The likely path is a soft renegotiation where BASE token leverage gets Coinbase better terms within the Superchain, and that renegotiation probably wouldn't even register as news outside governance forums.
Consider the interoperability argument. Base already built its own bridge to Solana using CCIP independently of Optimism's interop stack. They're not waiting for Superchain interoperability to ship. They're building their own cross-chain infrastructure in parallel. The soft lock of "shared upgrades and security" matters less when you're already engineering around it.
Now consider the OP grant. There's a cap on Base using this grant to vote or delegate more than 9% of the votable supply. This isn't alignment, but rather a minority stake with limited governance power. Coinbase can't control Optimism with 9%, but Optimism can't control Base either. At current prices (~$0.32), the full 118M grant is worth roughly $38 million. If OP dumps 30% post-renegotiation due to reduced Base revenue expectations, Coinbase's paper losses on the grant are dwarfed by eliminating or significantly reducing the revenue share permanently.
A renegotiation from 2.5% to 0.5% on $74M+ annualized sequencer revenue saves Coinbase $1.4M+ per year in perpetuity. A one-time ~$10M haircut on OP grant value is noise by comparison.
Institutions don't care about Superchain politics. They care about Base's TVL, transaction volume, and Coinbase's earnings. A quietly renegotiated revenue share wouldn't move COIN stock. Rather, it would just appear as a minor governance update in Optimism's forum, and a slightly better margin for Coinbase's L2 business.
We believe OP is still not priced as an asset with counterparty risk. It should be.
The token has fallen 93% from its all-time high of $4.84 to ~$0.32, with a circulating market cap of roughly $620 million. The market has clearly repriced OP downward, but we believe it hasn't fully priced in the structural risk embedded in the Superchain's economic model.
The divergence tells the story. TVL on Base rose from $3.1B in January 2025 to a peak above $5.6B in October. Base is winning. OP holders are not. Consumer attention has shifted almost entirely toward Base, while OP Mainnet continues to lag in retail usage despite benefiting from new Superchain partners.
The Superchain looks like a decentralized collective. Economically, it's a single-counterparty dependency, and that counterparty has every incentive to renegotiate.
Consider the revenue concentration. Base contribute over 71% of all sequencer revenue shared with the Optimism Collective. OP Mainnet's outsized contribution isn't because it's growing; it's because it shares 100% of profit versus Base's 2.5%/15% split.
Now consider the asymmetric payoff structure for OP holders:
If Base stays and grows: OP captures 2.5% of the upside. Base keeps 97.5%.
If Base renegotiates to ~0.5%: OP loses ~80% of Base-derived revenue. The Superchain's largest contributor becomes economically negligible.
If Base exits entirely: OP loses its economic engine overnight.
In all three scenarios, the upside is capped and the downside is open-ended. You're long a revenue stream where the largest payer holds all the leverage, including an MIT-licensed exit option and a nascent token that could formalize independent governance at any time.
The market appears to have priced in that Base's growth doesn't accrue meaningfully to OP holders. What it hasn't priced in, we believe, is the exit risk — the possibility that Coinbase uses BASE token leverage to renegotiate terms, or worse, gradually decouples from Superchain governance entirely.
Dive into 'Narratives' that will be important in the next year
Sui
Hyperliquid
Monad
Rialo
Hyperliquid
PolymarketSui
Solana
LayerZeroRialo
Ethereum
MegaETHHyperliquid
Base